I have some opinions on this matter. I started a company last year that allows people within and outside of the company to recommend professionals based on projects. We have been ushered into a world where our jobs, for the most part, constitute a series of projects that are undertaken over the course of a person’s career. The recognition system around this granular element is lacking; we have recommendations and recognition systems that have been popularized by LinkedIn, Kudos, Rypple, etc. But we have not seen much development in tools that address recognition around projects in the public domain. I foresee the possibility of LinkedIn getting into this space soon. Why? It is simple. The answer is in their “useless” Endorsement feature that has been on since late last year. As of March 13, one billion endorsements have been given to 56 million LinkedIn members, an average of about 4 per person. What does this mean? It means that LinkedIn has just validated a potential feature which will add more flavor to the endorsements – Why have you granted these endorsements in the first place?

Thus, it stands to reason the natural step is to reach out to these endorsers by providing them appropriate templates to add more flavor to the endorsements. Doing so will force a small community of the 56 million participants to add some flavor. Even if that constitutes 10%, that is almost 5.6M members who are contributing to this feature. Now how many products do you know that release one feature and very quickly gather close to six million active participants to use it? In addition, this would only gain force since more and more people would use this feature and all of a sudden … the endorsements become a beachhead into a very strategic product.

The other area that LinkedIn will probably step into is to catch the users young. Today it happens to be professionals; I will not be surprised if they start moving into the university/college space and what is a more effective way to bridge than to position a product that recognizes individuals against projects the individuals have collaborated on.

LinkedIn and Facebook are two of the great companies of our time and they are peopled with incredibly smart people. So what may seemingly appear as a great failure in fact will become the enabler of a successful product that will significantly increase the revenue streams of LinkedIn in the long run!

Most of you today have heard the word “pivot”. It has become a very ubiquitous word – it pretends to be something which it is not. And entrepreneurs and VC’s have found oodles of reasons to justify that word. Some professional CXO’s throw that word around in executive meetings, board meetings, functional meetings … somehow they feel that these are one of the few words that give them gravitas. So “pivot” has become the sexy word – it portrays that the organization and the management is flexible and will iterate around its axis quickly to accommodate new needs … in fact, they would change direction altogether for the good of the company and the customers. After all, agility is everything, isn’t it? And couple that with Lean Startup – the other Valley buzz word … and you have created a very credible persona. (I will deal with the Lean Startup in a later blog and give that its due. As a matter of fact, the concept of “pivot” was introduced by Eric Ries who has also introduced the concept of Lean Startup).

Pivots happen when the company comes out with product that is not the right fit to market. They assess that customers want something different. Tweaking the product to fit the needs of the customer does not constitute a pivot. But if you change the entire product or direction of the company – that would be considered a pivot.

It gives examples of eight entrepreneurs who believe that they have exercised pivot in their business model. But if you read the case studies closely, none of them did. They tweaked and tweaked and tweaked along the way. The refined their model. Scripted.com appears to be the only example that comes closest to the concept of the “pivot” as understood in the Valley.

Customer problem pivot. In this scenario, you use essentially the same product to solve a different problem for the same customer segment. Eric says that Starbucks famously did this pivot when they went from selling coffee beans and espresso makers to brewing drinks in-house.

Market segment pivot. This means you take your existing product and use it to solve a similar problem for a different set of customers. This may be necessary when you find that consumers aren’t buying your product, but enterprises have a similar problem, with money to spend. Sometimes this is more a marketing change than a product change.

Technology pivot. Engineers always fight to take advantage of what they have built so far. So the most obvious pivot for them is to repurpose the technology platform, to make it solve a more pressing, more marketable, or just a more solvable problem as you learn from customers.

Product feature pivot. Here especially, you need to pay close attention to what real customers are doing, rather than your projections of what they should do. It can mean to zoom-in and remove features for focus, or zoom-out to add features for a more holistic solution.

Revenue model pivot. One pivot is to change your focus from a premium price, customized solution, to a low price commoditized solution. Another common variation worth considering is the move from a one-time product sale to monthly subscription or license fees. Another is the famous razor versus blade strategy.

Sales channel pivot. Startups with complex new products always seem to start with direct sales, and building their own brand. When they find how expensive and time consuming this is, they need to use what they have learned from customers to consider a distribution channel, ecommerce, white-labeling the product, and strategic partners.

Product versus services pivot. Sometimes products are too different or too complex to be sold effectively to the customer with the problem. Now is the time for bundling support services with the product, education offerings, or simply making your offering a service that happens to deliver a product at the core.

Major competitor pivot. What do you do when a major new player or competitor jumps into your space? You can charge ahead blindly, or focus on one of the above pivots to build your differentiation and stay alive.

Now please re-read all of the eight different types of “pivot” carefully! And reread again. What do you see? What do you find if you reflect upon these further? None of these are pivots! None! All of the eight items fit better into Porter’s Competition Framework. You are not changing direction. You are not suddenly reimagining a new dawn. You are simply tweaking as you learn more. So the question is – Is the rose by any other name still a rose? The answer is yes! Pivot means changing direction … in fact, so dramatically that the vestiges of the early business models fade away from living memory. And there have been successful pivots in recent business history. But less so … and for those who did, you will likely have not heard of them at all. They have long been discarded in the ash heap of history.

Great companies are established by leaders that have vision. The vision is the aspirational goal of the company. The vision statement reflects the goal in a short and succinct manner. Underlying the vision, they incorporate principles, values, missions, objectives … but they also introduce a corridor of uncertainty. Why? Because the future is rarely a measure or a simple extrapolation of expressed or latent needs of customers in the past. Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, Facebook, Google, Genentech, Virgin Group, Amazon, Southwest Airlines etc. are examples of great companies who have held true to their vision. They have not pivoted. Why? Because the leaders (for the most part- the founders) had a very clear and aspirational vision of the future! They did not subject themselves to sudden pivots driven by the “animal spirits” of the customers. They have understood that deep waters run still, despite the ripples and turbulence on the surface. They have honed and reflected upon consumer behavior and economic trends, and have given significant thought before they pulled up the anchor. They designed and reflected upon the ultimate end before they set sail. And once at sea, and despite the calm and the turbulence, they never lost sight of the aspirational possibilities of finding new lands, new territories, and new cultures. In fact, they can be compared to the great explorers or great writers – search for a theme and embark upon the journey …within and without. They are borne upon consistency of actions toward attainment and relief of their aspirations.

Now we are looking at the millennial generation. Quick turnarounds, fast cash, prepare the company for an acquisition and a sale or what is commonly called the “flip” … everything is super-fast and we are led to believe that this is greatness. Business plans are glibly revised. This hotbed of activity and the millennial agility to pivot toward short-term goal is the new normal — pivot is the concept that one has to be ready for and adopt quickly. I could not disagree more. When I hear pivots … it tells me that the founders have not deliberated upon the long-term goals well. In fact, it tells me that their goals are not aspirational for the most part. They are what we call in microeconomic theory examples of contestable agents in the market of price-takers. They rarely, very rarely create products that endure and stand the test of time!

So now let us relate this to organizations and people. People need stability. People do not seek instability – at least I can speak for a majority of the people. An aspirational vision in a company can completely destabilize a certain market and create tectonic shifts … but people gravitate around the stability of the aspirational vision and execute accordingly. Thus, it is very important for leadership to broadcast and needle this vision into the DNA of the people that are helping the organization execute. With stability ensured, what then happens are the disruptive innovations! This may sound counter-factual! Stability and disruptive innovations! How can these even exist convivially together and be spoken in the same breath! I contend that Innovation occurs when organizations allow creativity upon bedrock of discipline and non-compromising standards. A great writer builds out the theme and let the characters jump out of the pages!

When you have mediocrity in the vision, then the employees have nothing aspirational to engage to. They are pockets sometimes rowing the boat in one direction, and at other times rowing against one another or in a completely direction. Instability is injected into the organization. But they along with their leaders live behind the veil of ignorance – they drink the Red Bull and follow the Pied Piper of Hamelin. So beware of the pivot evangelists!

The difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation lays the groundwork to reflect the qualitative dimension of motivation. The distinction is critical, in that – understanding it would serve the purpose of laying out the appropriate organizational architecture that would encourage the proper motivation that would drive employee engagement.

Intrinsic motivation reflects an engagement in activities that are performed with the sole end being satisfaction. An intrinsically motivated employee would do things simply for the sheer joy of doing things and assessing results. Tangible rewards or any rewards per se are not the ends that they drive toward. On the other hand, an extrinsically motivated employee is driven by tangible rewards – money, gifts, social approval; or they are driven specifically to avoid punishments – getting fired, rejection, being passed over for an important project, and career limiting responses.

Thus, in both instances, the theory was fairly mechanistic and behavioral. In fact, even intrinsically motivated employees can be framed in a mechanistic and behavioral world wherein the cause and effect relationship is an act and the joy of seeing a result. The only difference is that they are not connected to influences from without. But what has become a fact is that if the organization provides the appropriate structure to allow employees to ignite their intrinsic drives, the organization will benefit more than the alternative framework. This does not mean that one has to do without the other; it does mean though that depending on the nature of the work and the stage of the company – either or both motivation archetypes can be activated which will elicit the right engagement to advance the cause of the company. The questions though remain – What, When and How?

What? The culture has to address deficiency needs. These constitute the needs like security in the job, reasonable pay, and opportunities for growth, promotions, recognition, etc. Deploying a structure that only satisfies the intrinsic inclinations will be less likely to succeed if the deficiency needs are not clearly addressed. This would mean that good organizations would embark and deploy programs to address and mitigate deficiency needs. However, all that the organization has provided upon successful deployment is a sense of shared relief. But the organization needs to up their ante to allow for “growth needs” which is the manifestation of the intrinsic metric. That would mean to dive deeper on a case by case basis and as a group to deploy programs that fuel aspirational and idealistic goals of the employees. A great example that I immediately recall is the 3M model or the Google model wherein employees are given time to do their own thing on company time! Now this is obviously not practical for all companies, but certainly there is and will be some points that organizations can deploy to fuel “voluntary” engagement.

When? Timing is important. An organization can set a directional tone, but when to deploy what is driven by a host of discrete or related factors – for example, rush to go-to-market, liquidity crisis, major software pushes, declaring and preparing for earnings’ release, etc. When the organization is being driven on account of all these factors and more to ensure their survival, they do not have the degree of freedom necessarily to deploy the programs that promote “growth needs”. In fact, some organizations in a hyper-competitive environment may always feel as if they are in a pressure cooker and thus cascade that pressure across the ranks and files of the company. In the extreme case, if the organization is better insulated from the trials and tribulations of external factors, they would have a greater degree of freedom to nurture the “growth needs”. Now the latter scenario is very important to understand since today we belong in the information age rather than the mechanistic industrial age. In fact, we are being ushered at a break neck pace into an age where insight gathered against information is the salient competitive distinction — the morass of data and information is fast becoming now a millstone around an organization’s neck. So to success in the Age of Insights, so to speak, the company MUST deploy programs that anticipate and nurture the “growth needs”. The case for it is amplified further by the simple fact that people are mobile and have more and more choices. Hence, the Best Place to Work is an important metric that companies and employees follow since these companies have provided the right mix. To reiterate, timing the programs is important but the fact that both programs must be deployed to ensure an engaged culture is less debatable.

How? This is the penultimate question. Once the organization have assessed what is need and when, they have to execute. How do we establish a balanced set of programs that would fuel the appropriate level of engagement that will positively impact the organization? Conversely, how do we untether from legacy programs that were good for a particular set of circumstances, but may not be good going forward. This probably comes more in the realm of organizational psychologists but here are a few takeaways. First, employees have to be given free choice – in other words, given other alternatives, they would choose to do that alternative that optimizes and increases the value of the company the most. A fine example would be co-founders banging away at their work 24X7 and fuelled by dreams and possibilities for their creation. Put on a spotlight on this behavior – Multiply this behavior a hundred fold to characterize mass group psychology, and then figure out what can be done to create a “permanent immanence” or the state of continuous excitement and engagement. What we know based on studies, that engagement arising out of intrinsic motivation results in creativity, well-being, cognitive flexibility, loyalty, etc. By comparison, we also know that engagement as a result of extrinsic motivation may be as good – or depending on your perspective, may be as bad as a sugar high. Engagement ceases immediately or slowly once the extrinsic motivator is removed. In fact, a more extreme version suggests that introduced extrinsic motivation programs that serve “dependency needs” may actually depress engagement even lower than the original state.

So the general consensus appears to be to introduce not a plan but a surprise. For example, rewards that are expected, contingent on engagement or on task completion, and tangible are more likely to be detrimental to intrinsic motivation than rewards that are unexpected, not contingent, and intangible. More studies have in fact shown that employers should pursue the internalization of an employees’ extrinsic motivation for these tasks. Thus commending employees with unplanned surprises coupled with surfacing the value of the activity in and out of the organization appeals to the individual’s innate sense of worth to the company and outside of it. Hence, recognition at deeper granularity that is served with an element of surprise in an open environment is one of the better programs that ignite employee engagement.

Creativity is not innovation. Let me say that again – Creativity is not innovation!

However, creativity is an important process toward innovation. There are other components that are just as important in the process, and these may, one might argue, amputate the creative process – but these components are important in increasing orders of magnitude to fuel the innovative cycle. Some of the other key components are focus, discipline, boundaries, and relevance. I will tackle each of these in further detail.

1. Creativity: You begin with an idea. The idea could be different, it could be unique or it could be an existing shift in the way of looking at things. It is novel but perhaps may not be appropriate. It could defy the physical and temporal constraints … it may not be even appropriate for the time and purpose. It elevates a response to a condition that has actually brewed in one’s mind for some time; or a simple realization when the constellation of circumstances seem to be aligned to surface the idea. It is singularly the process of gestating and giving form to an idea and channelizing it, through some medium, for active and passive observation.

2. Focus: The idea is out there … an abstract metaphor perhaps! Or something that is concrete but it is an object that is like an amoeba. It changes, it is malleable, it is psychedelic, it is formless … and so now you have to zero in and seek the relevance. You have to eliminate the irrelevant … you have to peel the onion and get to the core of the creative component. Two people might look at the core in the same creative component and arrive at starkly different results. The core is a mesh of both – objective being and a subjective assessment of its latent value.

3. Discipline: Now that you have zeroed in on the core and you have reflected upon it long enough to allow permanence, the hard task is discipline. This is an act of pushing away all peripheral thoughts that may threaten or distract you from amplifying the core. It is here when you say more no’s to push away the meteoric shower of blinding and provoking possibilities. This is a hard milestone: this is where we now start to think that we can bite more than we can chew; we give ourselves superhuman strength; we believe that a few extras here and there will only add and certainly not take away value from the core. Alas, we would be so wrong if we start thinking that way. If we happen to introduce more variables with the penultimate thought of creating something grand, we would have create immense complexities that would suddenly make the core less relevant. So discipline is to ward off those extraneous thoughts and return with plural judgment toward a singular end.

4. Boundaries: Now you ensure that the core does not spillover beyond its reach … in other words, it does not spread itself so thin that it dilutes its purpose for existence and relevance. You establish boundaries. The scale of such boundaries that you determine are in the context of the existence of the core … ideas that are thinly separable from others but enough to maintain its own identity will have smaller and well defined boundaries versus ideas that swim in the blue ocean wherein one can envision a slightly larger scale with some porous frontiers.

5. Relevance: Once you have gone through all of the above steps, you have to seek relevance or position the core toward relevance. It is a philosophical mindset … if you get this right, the messaging of positioning and execution strategy will be a lot easier and executable.

Innovation is the production and the implementation of the ideas. But innovation must have a payback within a reasonable time frame. It may span seconds to a generation, each of which would have different levels of investment and risks attached to it. Regardless, innovation without payback is a mirage … a delusion … a word that will implode quickly with the passage of time. Creation is easy, innovation is hard! Creation can be a solo effort; innovation by and large requires more players in place, institutional or otherwise. Creation dies with you; Innovation stands the test of time. Creation is the embodiment of the thought – cogito ergo sum; Innovation is the core that lives beyond your times.

So consider the question – Do I want to simply create or do I want to innovate?

The answers may lead you to divergent paths …and, if innovation is the path you choose, get in terms with the social network – the array of people, institutions, value systems, dreams … all of which exist in some cohesive whole. Imagine that the social network is your reference library that you must depend on to forge ahead to enable meaningful and impactful innovations … since innovation cannot ever occur in a vacuum.

AS PART of an effort to streamline Economist.com and arrange things more logically, we’re closing down the Babbage blog. We’ll continue to post extra science and technology stories online, in addition to those that appear in the print edition, but these will now appear on the Science and technology page, rather than as posts on the Babbage blog. Our aim is t […]

IN THE end, Microsoft fooled everyone. The replacement for its widely disparaged Windows 8 operating system turned out to be not Windows 9, as expected, but Windows 10. No explanation, other than marketing waffle, was given as to why the company should skip a release number. “We know that based on the product coming, and just how different our approach overa […]

IF YOU want something done, the saying goes, give it to a busy person. It is an odd way to guarantee hitting deadlines. But a paper recently published in the Journal of Consumer Research suggests it may, in fact, be true—as long as the busy person conceptualises the deadline in the right way. Yanping Tu of the University of Chicago and Dilip Soman of the Uni […]

EVER since the “paperless office” was first mooted in a Business Week article back in 1975, its estimated time of arrival has always been ten years away. And so it remains. The amount of paper used in homes and offices has declined slightly over the past decade. And certainly an increasing number of organisations have managed to go paperless to some extent, […]

WHEN the autonomous cars in Isaac Asimov's 1953 short story “Sally” encourage a robotic bus to dole out some rough justice to an unscrupulous businessman, the reader is to believe that the bus has contravened Asimov's first law of robotics, which states that “a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to […]